Difference between revisions of "AI understanding"

From GISAXS
Jump to: navigation, search
(Learning/Training)
(Information Processing)
Line 113: Line 113:
  
 
==Information Processing==
 
==Information Processing==
* [https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04444 What's the Magic Word? A Control Theory of LLM Prompting]
+
* 2021-03: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.05247 Pretrained Transformers as Universal Computation Engines]
* [https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20311 Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Process]
+
* 2023-04: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03843 Why think step by step? Reasoning emerges from the locality of experience]
 +
* 2023-10: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04444 What's the Magic Word? A Control Theory of LLM Prompting]
 +
* 2024-02: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12875 Chain of Thought Empowers Transformers to Solve Inherently Serial Problems]: Proves that transformers can solve any problem, if they can generate sufficient intermediate tokens
 +
* 2024-07: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20311 Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Process]
 
** Models learning reasoning skills (they are not merely memorizing solution templates). They can mentally generate simple short plans (like humans).
 
** Models learning reasoning skills (they are not merely memorizing solution templates). They can mentally generate simple short plans (like humans).
 
** When presented facts, models develop internal understanding of what parameters (recursively) depend on each other. This occurs even before an explicit question is asked (i.e. before the task is defined). This appears to be different from human reasoning.
 
** When presented facts, models develop internal understanding of what parameters (recursively) depend on each other. This occurs even before an explicit question is asked (i.e. before the task is defined). This appears to be different from human reasoning.
 
** Model depth matters for reasoning. This cannot be mitigated by chain-of-thought prompting (which allow models to develop and then execute plans) since even a single CoT step may require deep, multi-step reasoning/planning.
 
** Model depth matters for reasoning. This cannot be mitigated by chain-of-thought prompting (which allow models to develop and then execute plans) since even a single CoT step may require deep, multi-step reasoning/planning.
* [https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03843 Why think step by step? Reasoning emerges from the locality of experience]
 
* 2024-02: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12875 Chain of Thought Empowers Transformers to Solve Inherently Serial Problems]: Proves that transformers can solve any problem, if they can generate sufficient intermediate tokens
 
 
* 2024-11: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01992 Ask, and it shall be given: Turing completeness of prompting]
 
* 2024-11: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01992 Ask, and it shall be given: Turing completeness of prompting]
  

Revision as of 11:16, 24 February 2025

Interpretability

Mechanistic Interpretability

Semanticity

Counter-Results

Reward Functions

Symbolic and Notation

Mathematical

Geometric

Topography

Challenges

GYe31yXXQAABwaZ.jpeg

Heuristic Understanding

Emergent Internal Model Building

Semantic Directions

Directions, e.g.: f(king)-f(man)+f(woman)=f(queen) or f(sushi)-f(Japan)+f(Italy)=f(pizza)

Task vectors:

Feature Geometry Reproduces Problem-space

Capturing Physics

Theory of Mind

Skeptical

Information Processing

Generalization

Grokking

Tests of Resilience to Dropouts/etc.

  • 2024-02: Explorations of Self-Repair in Language Models
  • 2024-06: What Matters in Transformers? Not All Attention is Needed
    • Removing entire transformer blocks leads to significant performance degradation
    • Removing MLP layers results in significant performance degradation
    • Removing attention layers causes almost no performance degradation
    • E.g. half of attention layers are deleted (48% speed-up), leads to only 2.4% decrease in the benchmarks
  • 2024-06: The Remarkable Robustness of LLMs: Stages of Inference?
    • They intentionally break the network (swapping layers), yet it continues to work remarkably well. This suggests LLMs are quite robust, and allows them to identify different stages in processing.
    • They also use these interventions to infer what different layers are doing. They break apart the LLM transformer layers into four stages:
      • Detokenization: Raw tokens are converted into meaningful entities that take into account local context (especially using nearby tokens).
      • Feature engineering: Features are progressively refined. Factual knowledge is leveraged.
      • Prediction ensembling: Predictions (for the ultimately-selected next-token) emerge. A sort of consensus voting is used, with “prediction neurons” and "suppression neurons" playing a major role in upvoting/downvoting.
      • Residual sharpening: The semantic representations are collapsed into specific next-token predictions. There is a strong emphasis on suppression neurons eliminating options. The confidence is calibrated.
    • This structure can be thought of as two halves (being roughly dual to each other): the first half broadens (goes from distinct tokens to a rich/elaborate concept-space) and the second half collapses (goes from rich concepts to concrete token predictions).

Other

Scaling Laws

Information Processing/Storage

Tokenization

For numbers/math

Learning/Training

Hidden State

  • 2025-02: Emergent Response Planning in LLM: They show that the latent representation contains information beyond that needed for the next token (i.e. the model learns to "plan ahead" and encode information relevant to future tokens)

Failure Modes

Psychology

Allow LLM to think

In-context Learning

Reasoning (CoT, etc.)

See Also